The utility of not taking the lead on Libya

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Monday, March 21, 2011 - 4:14 PM

As I try to sort out all of the implications of Operation Odyssey Dawn, I see two memes that should be thought of in concert. The first one is the striking fact that the United States seemed to be following rather than leading on organizing the U.N. Security Council to take action. The second theme is that Libya is way far down on the list of America's Middle East priorities, so the United States should be wary about the opportunity costs of getting too involved.

Combining these two memes makes me think of my wedding -- and therefore why this aspect of U.S. policy towards Libya might be a good thing.

Let me explain. When my lovely bride and I were planning our nuptials, we were wary of excessive parental interventions on the issues we really cared about -- the vows, the food, the music, the seating arrangements, etc. Of course, these were our parents, so a stonewalling strategy wasn't going to work terribly well either.

Faced with this policy conundrum, we hit upon a brilliant idea -- we had to give them an issue that they cared about fervently but didn't really matter to us all that much. So, we had the Official Blog Moms decide on the favors that would be at every place-setting.

This proved to be a brilliant maneuver. We would receive constant updates and debates about what was under consideration. When receiving all of this information, we would smile, nod, and say, "we trust you to make the right decision." All the while, we took care of the Big Wedding Issues that were of Serious Importance to Us. I think the result was a win-win -- the parents claimed ownership of something they cared about, but we got the wedding we wanted.

What does this have to do with Libya? This issue clearly animates French President Nicolas Sarkozy more than U.S. President Barack Obama (surprisingly, given France's past preferences on these kind of issues). Sarkozy has been receiving plaudits for his leadership. Which is great on two counts. First, it (hopefully) means that after the initial efforts to ensure that Libya's air defenses are neutralized, the United States really can let France and the U.K. take the lead on operational activities.

Second, I share other's concerns that an excessive focus on Libya might distract the top U.S. leadership from Other Really Big Events. What holds for the United States holds for France with even greater force, however. In that sense, then, the more that Sarkozy is obsessed with Libya, the less time he can devote to ~~overambitious and ultimately futile grand economic designs~~ his pet projects in preparation for the 2011 G-20 summit.

Much like big weddings, many things could go wrong along the way -- but I think pundits need to appreciate the positive second-order effects of letting France be in charge of the chocolate favor--- I mean, the immediate intricacies of enforcing Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya.

What do you think?

COMMENTS (7)

EXPLORE:INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, CREEPING MILITARIZATION, FRANCE, MIDDLE EAST, OBAMA, UNITED STATES

24 hours later.... thoughts on McChrystal

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 2:05 PM

Hmmm.... which magazine should I peruse online this AM.... maybe TNR? The National Interest? Nah, I'm not in the mood for deep thinking. I'll just look at Rolling Stone, that won't take much intellectual heavy lifting.... oh, look, a profile of General McChrystal.... hmmm.... um.... holy cats.

Since everyone and their mother has their take on this ~~Mongolian clusterf**k~~ imbroglio already, I'm not going to bother linking to the rest of the blogosphere. Instead, just a few measured and a few off the cuff reactions:

1. Doris Kearns Goodwin makes the case in today's New York Times that Obama doesn't have to fire McChrystal, pointing out that Union General George McClellan was far ruder to Lincoln, and yet was not fired. This is historically true, but I'm not sure it's really the best example. To put it gently, McClellan was a lousy, timid general -- by letting him stay on, Lincoln accomplished little but to prolong the war.

2. I find myself in agreement with Tom Donnelly and William Kristol:

McChrystal should not be the only one to go. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and “AfPak” czar Richard Holbrooke should likewise either submit their resignations or be fired by President Obama. Vice President Biden and his surrogates should be told to sit down and be quiet, to stop fighting policy battles in the press. The administration's "team of rivals" approach is producing only rivalry.

They're right (see also David Ignatius). McChrystal did himself no favors in the RS article, but he's hardly the only Afghan policy heavyweight to be tarnished by the essay. Eikenberry poisoned the well with his press leaks last year, and Holbrooke is, well, Holbrooke. A clean sweep might be the best move Obama could make.

3) Speaking of neoconservatives, it's worth noting that, contra Josh Rogin's take, GOP policy wonks are reacting the way you would expect a loyal opposition to react. That is to say, sure, they're making hay of the problems with the Afghan strategy, but they're also quite firm in saying that Obama should dire McChrystal. See Kristol, Eliot Cohen, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham.

This should not be terribly surprising. Neoconservatives have been pretty clear all along about civilian control of the military, and McChrystal's gaffes cut right to the heart of this issue.

4) One final point: beyond the descriptions of McChrystal and his aides acting like jackasses in Paris, the RS article was of little use. It presented a slanted portrait of COIN and it's advocates, and seemed determined to paint McChrystal in the worst light possible. As Blake Hounshell observed, it failed to note that at this stage it's impossible to evaluate the COIN strategy, because these approaches tend to have "darkest before the dawn" qualities.

What do you think?

Alex Wong/Getty Images

COMMENTS (10)

EXPLORE:U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, AFGHANISTAN, CREEPING MILITARIZATION, MILITARY, OBAMA

In other news, dog bites man

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 8:40 PM

Secretary of Defense Bob Gates has voiced concerns in the past about the underfunding of foreign policy departments not located in the Pentagon. From this Washington Post story by Ann Scott Tyson, it appears he's upping the ante:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned yesterday against the risk of a "creeping militarization" of U.S. foreign policy, saying the State Department should lead U.S. engagement with other countries, with the military playing a supporting role.
"We cannot kill or capture our way to victory" in the long-term campaign against terrorism, Gates said, arguing that military action should be subordinate to political and economic efforts to undermine extremism.

You expect to hear the phrase "creeping militarization" with regard to U.S. foreign policy from a lot of places -- most of which would be ensconced within the academy. When the Secretary of Defense is saying it, however, it's worth taking notice. More here:

Broadly speaking, when it comes to America’s engagement with the rest of the world, you probably don’t here this often from a Secretary of Defense , it is important that the military is – and is clearly seen to be – in a supporting role to civilian agencies. Our diplomatic leaders – be they in ambassadors’ suites or on the seventh floor of the State Department – must have the resources and political support needed to fully exercise their statutory responsibilities in leading American foreign policy.

From a standard bureaucratic politics perspective, this kind of behavior is damn unusual. Agency heads usually don't go around saying that other agencies need more resources. Of course, Gates himself likely doesn't think much of that perspective:

One of the reasons I have rarely been invited to lecture in political science departments – including at Texas A&M – is because faculty correctly suspect that I would tell the students that what their textbooks say about government does not describe the reality I have experienced in working for seven presidents.

COMMENTS (5)

EXPLORE:U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, BOB GATES, BUREAUCRATIC POLITICS, CREEPING MILITARIZATION